Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who do not adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it.

Authoritarianism: tough attitude towards violations of social rules, norms and laws;Conservatism: favoring obedient and respectful support for societal authorities;Traditionalism: favoring traditional, religious social norms and values.

There have been a number of other attempts to identify "left-wing authoritarians" in the United States and Canada. These would be people who submit to leftist authorities, are highly conventional to liberal viewpoints and are aggressive to people who oppose left-wing ideology. These attempts have failed because measures of authoritarianism always correlate at least slightly with the right. However, left-wing authoritarians were found in Eastern Europe.[21] There are certainly extremists across the political spectrum, but most psychologists now believe that authoritarianism is a predominantly right-wing phenomenon.

Predominantly a right-wing phenomenon? No kidding.

Prohibition of drugs, prohibition of alcohol, VICE laws, seat belt laws, helmet laws, mandatory insurance laws, the police state in general... you name it... any loss of freedom can be attributed to the right wing.

Anyway, I tend to think the liberals are right in there on the war on drugs. I find it odd that malcontentedness around things like the war on drugs would be considered a puny thing. I mean, that is a fucking lot of tax money arming the state. I find it hard to imagine critics of big government and socialism are not concerned about that.

(I know the Republicans tend not to be, but many parts of the right do see a problem with this. Odd that our little Satyr kids are not more wary of it)

Anyway, I tend to think the liberals are right in there on the war on drugs. I find it odd that malcontentedness around things like the war on drugs would be considered a puny thing. I mean, that is a fucking lot of tax money arming the state. I find it hard to imagine critics of big government and socialism are not concerned about that.

They are hypocrites to the core.

Nixon started the drug war to criminalize war protesters and blacks. The Vietnam war as a profit machine that wasn't meant to be won, but perpetuated.

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.

"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

Reagan continued it after realizing how beneficial to the economy the drug war is, along with military spending and war in general.

war-on-drugs.jpg (30.03 KiB) Viewed 2057 times

Plus they could herd undesirables into concentration camps known as prisons where workers could be exploited at 25 cents/hour, if they get paid at all.

(I know the Republicans tend not to be, but many parts of the right do see a problem with this. Odd that our little Satyr kids are not more wary of it)

Yes but Satyr was smarter than Brave Sir Robin. And neither was he so scared of a fight. He rather reminds me of that impressionable kid who used to post here under the avatar of Nietzsche in sunglasses, but after someone protested the defamation of Nietzsche in shades, he promptly took it down and changed his name. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193935&p=2699456&hilit=sunglasses#p2699456 I can't tell if he and Jakob are the same or sharing a phone or what, but if they're disciples of Satyr, they have a long way to go. I'd much rather trade the riffraff for Satyr because at least we'd have a good debate instead of drive-by propaganda bombs ONLY meant to disrupt.

It may serve to disrupt, but I think it's a little dopamine thing. There, I said it, I labeled him. I used some highfalutin language that was vague but damning. Like a N aphorism. It's a tiny putting in their place act.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:It may serve to disrupt, but I think it's a little dopamine thing. There, I said it, I labeled him. I used some highfalutin language that was vague but damning. Like a N aphorism. It's a tiny putting in their place act.

I think he's a pita and if such disruptives are welcome here then I'm tempted to return to the no-hold-barred arena where at least I don't have to walk on eggshells pinned between crooks on one side and cops on the other.

I can't tell if he and Jakob are the same or sharing a phone or what, but if they're disciples of Satyr, they have a long way to go. I'd much rather trade the riffraff for Satyr

actually, there is no discipleship between those you mention. if you've noticed any similarity between these individuals, this can be attributed to them all having fallen under the control of mythological creature known as the lacquer head, which is the force responsible for the gradual deterioration of mind that we have been observing in them since around 2014. the lacquer head is an EXTREMELY dangerous creature, and most who fall under it's control cannot be saved. it is able to turn philosophy into something with the same effects as a chemical toxin, which it then subtly administers to destroy the intellect... like a kind of prolonged drug use. the lacquer head cannot be directly perceived, which makes it even more dangerous. we can only sense its presence through observing the behaviors of those who have become it's victims. when a patterned breakdown of the rational faculties and ability to reason clearly becomes apparent, we know the lacquer head is near.

I can't tell if he and Jakob are the same or sharing a phone or what, but if they're disciples of Satyr, they have a long way to go. I'd much rather trade the riffraff for Satyr

actually, there is no discipleship between those you mention. if you've noticed any similarity between these individuals, this can be attributed to them all having fallen under the control of mythological creature known as the lacquer head, which is the force responsible for the gradual deterioration of mind that we have been observing in them since around 2014. the lacquer head is an EXTREMELY dangerous creature, and most who fall under it's control cannot be saved. it is able to turn philosophy into something with the same effects as a chemical toxin, which it then subtly administers to destroy the intellect... like a kind of prolonged drug use. the lacquer head cannot be directly perceived, which makes it even more dangerous. we can only sense its presence through observing the behaviors of those who have become it's victims. when a patterned breakdown of the rational faculties and ability to reason clearly becomes apparent, we know the lacquer head is near.

I figured it was the Nietzschean Fundamentalism that Dunamis pointed out 13 years ago. All disciples of Nietzsche seem to be DittoHead lemmings following each other into the poisoned well while congratulating themselves for their blind obedience. But it could be glue too. I'm not ruling anything out!

Dunamis wrote:You don't understand. All Willing is Will to Power in Nietzsche. Nietzsche's Will to Power (his entire philosophy) has to be overcome, just as any other Will to Power in the world.

Of course if one rejects Nietzsche's "The entire world is a world of conflict, exploitation and over-mastering" from the start, one doesn't have to overcome Nietzsche at all, but simply become bemused by Nietzsche (and his followers).

Dunamis wrote:More power to you. If misunderstanding Nietzsche is your way of "using" Nietzsche, may you continue to misunderstand him as much as possible. As for Nietzsche being a big joke, well of course, in this I agree.

Dunamis wrote:

Jakob wrote: I suppose your anwer would be no. How predictable that you hate the idea of the eternal recurrence.

The lady doth protest too much. Such is the case of most "Nietzscheans", they announce, shriek, "thunder" their affirmation of life, in slogan after slogan, fear after fear. So much whistling past the graveyard. How many times does the "I am great" talk have to reveal to others how weak one is? The Eternal Return is nothing but a myth the frightened make up to appease their insecure minds, that somewhere, somehow (by the force of some ridiculous logic) this moment, this effort is being recorded. It is nothing more than a God's Little White Book of Deeds, and not even put into a clever disguise. It is pacifier that Little Nietzsche needed to suck on so that he wouldn't slip into his dreaded Nihilism.

Your take on philosophy is typically modern - the numbing illusion that everyone shares your fears and inhibitions (because they are advertized on tv.)

You have no idea what my philosophy is. If anyone projected his fears onto "everyone" (indeed) upon the entire universe, it was Nietzsche.

Dunamis wrote:I get you Nietzschean followers confused sometimes, you sound so much alike. Nietzsche protects himself with the form of his writing, making it has slipperyas possible, playing with masks of every sort. As usual he accuses Spinoza of doing just what he himself does; one could say that the "sick hermit" calling another person a "sick hermit" is practically the whole of Nietzsche's philosophy. Spinoza was very open with his philosophy, at least to the degree that it did not risk his life (friends were imprisoned or killed at this time). There was nothing that was "hiding," his correspondences were frequent and oft times patient beyond reason. What we learn about from what Nietzsche said about Spinoza, says very little about Spinoza, but says alot about himself. To call this "irony" and not just "blindness" or "sickness" is to play a game of redemption through renaming.

Feel free though to honor your closure of correspondence with me, and reclose it, as a fine unreactive Nietzschean would.

Dunamis wrote:I did respond. You just didn't like my response. I don't tag along with what Nietzsche has to say about himself (or what his commentators say). His justification for the Eternal Return, all the infinite qualifications, explanations, pleas for its necessity are meaningless. It is nothing more that Nietzsche dying to have some mark upon the universe that is indelible, really adolescent fantasy.

Again, anytime you want to show your Nietzschean spirit...

Dunamis wrote:You, and other self-proclaimed "creative geniuses" (not my phrase) have made Nietzsche a slogan machine for one's self-infatuations, and deprived yourself and others of the critique that Nietzsche was offering.

It is known as a poisoned well (a dog fell in it). You can either climb down and with great difficulty drink from it, grow intoxicated, spasm and die (under the delusion of your own greatness); or you can drop pennies into it from above, looking into its murk, see your distorting reflection and think your wishes will be granted. I say, walk on. There are other more interesting things in the world.

I figured it was the Nietzschean Fundamentalism that Dunamis pointed out 13 years ago. All disciples of Nietzsche seem to be DittoHead lemmings following each other into the poisoned well while congratulating themselves for their blind obedience.

well a 'nietzschean', today, in the age of philosophical fetishism, is someone who will usually demonstrate an anticlimax of character which creates an awkward and incongruous association between nietzsche's ideas and the 'nietzschean'. very, very rarely do you find someone to whom nietzsche's insights really apply, in whom you find real, living, breathing nietzschean activity and energy. merely claiming to agree with his ideas is not enough to be able to say one has experienced the nietzschean, or is a representation of the nietzschean philosophy. still everyone in this age, usually the atheists and fringe thinkers who fancy themselves as bold, original, unorthodox and nonconformist, claim the title 'superman', or feel that their lives will at some point present to them the opportunity to become a 'superman'. but it never happens; the nietzschean formulae is something so radical in intensity and extremity that it is nearly impossible for anyone today to truly approach it... because today most are too mundane and tedious to evoke it's spirit. you need to find something extraordinarily remarkable to be able to say 'that is a nietzschean way of life'. what dunamis experienced was this anticlimax of character; his vision of nietzsche did not match in quality those who he found espousing the philosophy. the immediate impression is always the same; these are just some ordinary, mediocre people peddling nietzsche in an attempt to appear tough or noble or courageous. but if one looks closely at the life, they find nothing in it that would warrant any genuine comparison to such. you might say that had such persons not known of nietzsche, you'd notice no difference in them.

dunamis was/is also a spinozist, who's philosophy of 'power' is so all-encompassing as to include even those things nietzsche's philosophy of 'power' would exclude. so dunamis is going to perceive in these self professed nietzscheans a much more narrow understanding of power. this turns the 'nietzschean' into a kind of double-caricature which invites even more criticism; one is not only not a nietzschean, but even as such, one would still suffer a naive and stunted understanding of what power is.

but yes, nietzsche is one of the most abused, most hijacked thinkers of all time who's come to symbolize shallow, subversive trends that people adopt in an attempt to distinguish themselves from the 'herd', without bearing any authentic character traits that would separate them as such. a great example of what i mean would be marilyn manson, that talentless freak clown 'artist' we hear on the radio. the very first page of his biography is a lengthy quote from WTP (will to power). it is these kinds of people today who think they are nietzscheans.

but you can't pretend to be nietzschean. that is to say, you can't tell yourself you are demonstrably nietzschean unless the nature and circumstances of your life are such that they can only be understood through nietzsche's philosophy. in a sense, the philosophy finds you, not vice versa. the same can be said about kierkegaard's philosophy. another instance of a way of life so radical it requires a profound change of being in order to 'live it'. ever met a genuine knight of faith? these dudes don't play no games, man. what i'm saying is, because of the existential severity of their philosophies, one does not walk casually into them. one gets thrusted, thrown, and pushed into place by extraordinary experiences that seize them and send them into temporary crisis. you could probably include sartre's philosophy as well. another significant existentialist that demands evasive action and an authentic reorientation of one's life.

anyway, you see what i mean. the more intense a philosophy is, the easier it is to goof it up, to become a insipid caricature of it. one has a very difficult time living up to nietzscheanism. not so much for living up to hume, or voltaire, or bacon, or any other less existentially forceful philosophy. one says today 'i'm a kantian', and goes on doing whatever they've always done. but when one says 'i'm a nietzschean', we hear the sound of the needle scratching across the record, and then that awkward silence of the anticlimax as we stare in disappointment.

I rather disagree. I always found Nietzsche to have most of all a message for the basic creature, a message all humans can understand. Overcoming has become a technical term, jargon, and thtis mostly due to fucking Universities, our overlords be praised. But Nietzsche used it very much as simply what the word conveys. You're scared of hights? Climb a tree. Basic. A whole hell of a lot of popular psychology today is unwittingly based on Nietzsche, things and ideas that were crushed before him by Christian masters.

The reason he is in a sense so elitist is that this basic insight, combined with his vast exposure to culture and the history of culture, led him straight to the highyest hights.

But actually, Nietzsche's philosophy is very easy to access. Just, understanding it is only practicing it while noticing it. So if you climb the tree because you were afraid of hights, and while doing it think to yourself "ah, this was what Nietzsche claimed all of life is," it starts hitting you what it entails.

That was what frustrated me for so long in these forums. Not the Testosterone Powered Nietzschean aspect, as Faust calls them, but the hyper-intellectual aspect. Nietzsche himself may have been very high-culture and hard to access, but the Nietzschean message is basic as hell.

oh and dipper i forget a crucial point in nietzsche's defense. while he might strike us as an insufferable monster of arrogance and elitism, deep in the hidden folds of his work there is some of the most self deprecating humiliation and modesty you'd ever find in a study of human nature. so fritz was not just some mad animal foaming at the mouth. he was also one of the most humble thinkers you'll ever know.

promethean75 wrote:dunamis was/is also a spinozist, who's philosophy of 'power' is so all-encompassing as to include even those things nietzsche's philosophy of 'power' would exclude. so dunamis is going to perceive in these self professed nietzscheans a much more narrow understanding of power. this turns the 'nietzschean' into a kind of double-caricature which invites even more criticism; one is not only not a nietzschean, but even as such, one would still suffer a naive and stunted understanding of what power is.

Dunamis wrote:I have little respect for the average listener of Nietzsche. I think Nietzche made several interesting points, but really very little of what he said drunk, Spinoza had not already said sober.

Occasionally one puts a sign up by a poisoned well, for those that are lost. For those enamored with those waters [Narcissus], more pleasure to you. I must say though, for those that climb down in to the well, like Sauwelios, I have a bit more respect. There is something bold about it, even in something misguided.

promethean75 wrote:but yes, nietzsche is one of the most abused, most hijacked thinkers of all time who's come to symbolize shallow, subversive trends that people adopt in an attempt to distinguish themselves from the 'herd', without bearing any authentic character traits that would separate them as such. a great example of what i mean would be marilyn manson, that talentless freak clown 'artist' we hear on the radio. the very first page of his biography is a lengthy quote from WTP (will to power). it is these kinds of people today who think they are nietzscheans.

That is the heart of the matter since what Nietzsche really was is as consequential as what Jesus really was in defining who christians are. Dunamis' point about Nietzschean Fundamentalism runs deep. I never studied Nietzsche, except a few tid bits from wiki articles, because I saw the sign by the well in the form of a few dumbass aphorisms and decided I would much rather drink from the likes of Mark Twain, or at least someone who didn't immediately turn me off, if my time has any value whatsoever besides spending it rummaging around someone else's fuckups, ya know? Why bother.

But all that is entirely beside the point of the Nietzscheans forming their own cult, divorced from Nietzsche or not, for the sake of a damn name. I mean, it's better than being a Kantian. "Hello, I'm a Kantian!" "Uh, you're a cunt wut?" It doesn't have the same appeal.

My philosophy doesn't have a name: I don't call myself a Wattian. "A wut?" I don't need a label, for I'm not lost [for those that are lost. For those enamored with those waters (Narcissus), more pleasure to you]. But the narcissists, the egotists, they need the star power of an edgy brand name.

Dunamis wrote:

Jakob wrote:you don't have a philosophy, Dunamis.

You are right. I have philosophies, as multiple as I am.

The Jeet Kune Do of philosophy: take what works, styles separate man, be formless, shapeless, be like water:

one says today 'i'm a kantian', and goes on doing whatever they've always done. but when one says 'i'm a nietzschean', we hear the sound of the needle scratching across the record, and then that awkward silence of the anticlimax as we stare in disappointment.

lol

he was also one of the most humble thinkers you'll ever know.

Could be, but I can't get past the pompously offensive facade of the sesquipedalian vernacular to find out. It's like someone with entirely too much cologne. Blame the translator I suppose, no doubt a Nietzschean